Speaker 4: 00:13

Our conversations on consciousness unsurprisingly became weighty. About 50 minutes. So what we've decided to do is break that topic down into two episodes. So what you are about to listen to is consciousness part one. Hello and welcome to Timeless, a podcast brought to you by me, Isabel Soden.

Speaker 3: 00:39

And by myself, Clive Highland.

Speaker 4: 00:41

We're very excited to be talking about. So, Clive. What are we chatting about today?

Speaker 3: 00:47

Well, basically, we've moved on to the subject of consciousness. Having talked about some of the physics background and some of the neuroscience background and why we're doing this stuff, I think we're ready for that discussion now. Why does it attract so much interest from so many scientific fields?

Speaker 4: 01:03

Quantum consciousness.

Speaker 3: 01:06

Yeah, possibly, but it didn't start off like that.

Speaker 4: 01:08

Okay, how did it start?

Speaker 3: 01:11

Well, you really write back to the original Greek philosophers, you know, we were thinking about what is consciousness, even if we didn't use that sort of language, you know, but where's our place in the universe? Um, and a classic example of that would be the standard you know allegory of something like Plato's Cave, you know, where you know it was being posed uh by by Plato that actually what we were doing was taking the shadows that people we live in caves and the shadows that are reflected on the caves we were taken as reality, um, whereas actually reality stood outside by the power that created the shadows in the first place. So it's like is what we are seeing real? And that's where I think it all started, yeah, and the whole um aspect of human consciousness. So shall I roll that forward? Or would you like yeah, okay, cool. Because I know you'll you you'll have some philosophical interest as well, right? So we start to move forward, and I guess the particular area to pick up then is psychology, you know, because obviously um the role of the consciousness and in particular unconscious is very much you know where psychology took itself towards the back end of the 19th century, particularly with people like Freud and with Jung. So I think there was a recognition at that point that you know we are driven by these subconscious um desires or dynamics that up until then we'd struggled to grapple with. Now, obviously, people are all aware in general of some of Freud's ideas, um, and rightly some of those I think uh have lost value, you know, things like the Ederbucks complex, you know, being a universal driver and all that stuff. Um, but nevertheless, you know, the guy was incredibly clever in terms of opening up that world and saying this is the world that we need to understand, you know, to in terms of the drivers of human nature. Um, Jung was particularly relevant to our conversation. Um, and he and Freud were good friends at one point, but then they sort of parted company in the sense that Jung fundamentally, like I just said, felt that Freud was taking some of his key concepts too far. And when you look into the background and Freud's own personal struggles in his life, you could sort of see to some degree how they reflected what he was trying to make sense of. Jung took it then in a slightly different direction. Um, but equally standing back from it, my understanding of Jung shows that that again was Jung's own way of understanding his um subconscious experiences. You know, um, and you can see the different parental influences that have come up for both of them. But nevertheless, you know, their achievement was that they put the unconscious on the table for psychology to sort of say this is really what we've got to understand, because conscious behavior again is we're back to the tip of the iceberg. Makes sense so far?

Speaker 4: 04:24

It does, yeah. I I'm really interested. I studied philosophy and psychology at university.

Speaker 3: 04:28

And so you're gonna tear me a partner.

Speaker 4: 04:32

I'm gonna struggle to record a single model. But I was really struck at the beginning that philosophy was almost like the pre-scientific attempt at understanding our minds and our sense of reality. And then I would love to know how you perceived that the early psychology held hands with the philosophical notions, and then how later, more science-driven psychology, you know, empirically observed psychology held hands with Freud and Jung in turn, and there's some of those early theories.

Speaker 3: 05:09

Okay. Well, took in the early bit, I think there was uh, you know, a whole mix there of compatibility and challenge that went on across philosophy and psychology. But I think the main thing they shared, but it was all about challenging our thinking, you know, and both sets of players were aware, I think, of the fact that we had boxed ourselves in with our thinking and we needed to break out of those boxes. And of course, uh philosophy goes much further back, as we said back to Greek times, etc., you know, where it's to a degree it's about thinking about thought. But nevertheless, I think they were bedfellows to a degree, albeit that psychology tried to make it more empirically grounded. You know, hence we use the term social science, right? You know, it's like a sort of science, yeah. And that's not diminishing its value in any way. Um, so but it was part of that whole explosion, I think, of understanding that was happening at the back end again of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, where that wasn't just limited to um philosophy and psychology. It was the whole of science was challenging itself, you know, because this was the time when we were moving into the phase where people like Einstein, you know, were making their mark, and we get into the physics debate. But it wasn't even just that, there was also the art explosion, you know. Effectively, that was the timing of the period of modern art, which was in you know my understanding was very much about it's not so much about form, you know, untangible form of so-called reality, it's about the symbolism that's associated with that. So you had a much more flexible approach to art, which reflected the human experience, you know. So everything was I we seem to be challenging, it's very interesting. So, why did it happen in all of these areas? Now, clearly they influenced each other, but they weren't bedfellows at that stage, but something was going on, you know, like right across the intellectual piece where people sort of saying, We haven't got this right. And that, you know, particularly shook physics because they thought they were pretty close to getting the whole thing right. Yeah, and then the rules were torn up, you know, which is a conversation we've we had previously. So uh yeah, interesting intellectual challenge. Um, I suppose, particularly with the scientific fields, they were more confined to the scientists. Philosophy, I think, had a level of exposure outside, you know, that would have influenced popular opinion a little bit. Um, but um, yeah, it fundamentally the rules were changing. Does that answer your question? Yeah, seems a long time ago now.

Speaker 4: 07:52

Yeah, interesting. I think it's so those moments where there's a sort of universally emergent concept that seems to hold different sections of uh society all at once. And I think as you say, yes, part of that is that it's all inspired and part of a dialogue, but then in a kind of Jungian capacity, there's also this kind of universal consciousness. There's this moment where everyone is delivered into this new realm of thought.

Speaker 3: 08:21

Yeah, it's a good point because you know I think I think Jung was probably the first to talk explicitly about uh explicitly about collective consciousness, you know. So it was not only delving into the um unconscious on a personal level, but it was about there's something happening there, you know, that's where we're connected. And you know, um that was the first time that we'd started to think about things in that way. And we didn't have any science really to back that up at that stage, it was very theoretical and very intuitive, but you know, as the science then started to move into its quantum phase, it started to back up some of that thinking, you know, with again the whole idea of there's been something going on in the quantum realm that is connected and that we don't understand. So, should I expand down on that a little bit more? Oh, yes, please. Okay. So, as I said in um one of the earlier sessions, you know, we got to a point in physics where we understood that um the reality that we we believed in until roughly the 1920s was being challenged when we started to recognize and could experiment to the effect that you know uh at the sub subatomic level, energy behaves differently to the way that matter behaves. And therefore, we couldn't possibly have a total understanding of life, you know, of the universe. Uh you can't really understand the house if you don't understand the foundations. Yeah. So basically, that then kicked off all the conversations during the course of the last century. Um, again, largely confined to the lab, but nevertheless, it was about okay, we understood now that the role of perception was critical in our understanding of reality. And that there, if I jump to the conclusion, the the current conclusion would there be there is there is no independent reality, it is just about the way that we perceive the universe and life in general. So now that was a hot topic for a long time, and still is, to be fair. You know, where we still have the physics debate from some who would say, Well, that's just a distraction, we need to focus on the things we can control, to others that would say that's foundational, you know, and we're we're gonna be stuck if we don't address those those issues. Um, so basically, now we've moved to a point from a physics point of view, which is trying to understand more and more how the role of human observation creates the reality that we experience. Okay, it's not independent, it's not separable from our perceptual systems, and consciousness is a general term for that. So, and yeah, the physics question is like okay, so I think most physicists would accept now that you know we we know our observation systems or perceptual systems create the right reality we experience. But does that mean what what happens to the universe when we're not perceiving it, when we're not sensing it? Okay, and there is no answer to that. You know, some people again would say, well, that's just a distraction, we can't prove that. Other people continue to regard it as a serious itch that we need to scratch, and we've got to do something about it. Yeah. So that's like the physics space. Is that okay for now? I know I haven't given an answer because there isn't an answer at the moment. We're still trying to work out what the implications are for the fact that you know it it's not an independent universe, it's a it's a universe that we've represented to ourselves in a particular way that that helps us evolve effectively.

Speaker 4: 12:06

And you're saying that the way in which our conscious mind uh observes the universe shapes the universe to our conscious mind or shapes the universe, period.

Speaker 3: 12:21

So let's deal with the word conscious first, okay, because it's this it's a broader definition of what we would understand by consciousness, um, because it includes the unconscious, right? So it's like all our perceptual systems, because it could be it includes smell, you know, obviously sight here in everything that we do to present uh an experience to ourselves whereby we can we can actually handle the universe. So one way of looking at it is like it's like dealing with um like an icon on a on a desktop. Okay, yeah. So in order to the universe is incredibly complex. Now, for us to understand it, we had to learn to create icons that helped us uh um interact with that that with that universe. Right.

Speaker 4: 13:10

So the sense data of a chair as the icon of a chair that sits on my brain's desktop.

Speaker 3: 13:16

Exactly that, right? So when we get an icon on the desktop that's saying, um, right, uh this envelope is there, which represents an email, right? Yeah, we know that is the envelope itself has no reality, it's just a gateway into something else. Because we don't want to be dealing with the electrical systems of computers, right? Yeah, we want something that makes it simple for us so that we can interact it with it effectively.

Speaker 4: 13:41

Yes.

Speaker 3: 13:41

And that's basically what we've done. I I was gonna say as a species, but all life has done.

Speaker 4: 13:46

And that's important.

Speaker 3: 13:48

It's really, really important. We've got to kind of come back to that, you know, and particularly probably in a later session in more detail. But it's all about the way that we focus on and create symbols that help us survive. Okay. Now, the normal, um, so we're going into the neuroscience as well on this now, but that's fine. So the normal then pushback, and that could be well, how do we see the same things then? But that's fundamentally because we have the same perceptual systems. The way in which our brains that are 99% plus the same, you know, the way that they collect data and present it to us internally so we can interact with that external environment is fundamentally the same. And of course, we've got a culture which collectively agrees that a spoon is a spoon. Yeah. You see what I mean? But the truth is, is it still a spoon when we're not looking at it when we're not experiencing in any way? And the standard answer is probably no, but we don't know what it is. It's not that it doesn't really exist, it exists. Yeah, but it exists as an energetic level.

Speaker: 14:52

Yeah.

Speaker 3: 14:53

But we need a system that filters information and particularly visual information, you know, which is very effective for us, and we tune to it. Yeah. And so that we bring that interaction to us in a manageable way.

Speaker: 15:06

Yes.

Speaker 3: 15:07

Does that make sense? I know it's an incredibly complex subject.

Speaker 4: 15:10

No, but I think you like thinking of it as a computer is really helpful. So the like dashes, the coding, the dashes and the dots of information that are passed that will inform your interface, your desktop to produce the envelope icon. Yeah. And the nature of reality is we don't know what it is beyond the icon, but let's say it's dashes and dots, and they look distinctly different from the envelope icon that we see. Absolutely. And each person's envelope icon, we all identify it as an envelope, but yours could look entirely different from mine.

Speaker 3: 15:47

Yeah. Not entirely different because we all agree the sun's the sun, right? Yes. But we will perceive the sun slightly differently. Yeah. And that's where the 1% as opposed to the 99% comes in, you know. We all have a slightly different take because our personal experiences will fine-tune our perceptual systems to what's important for us.

Speaker: 16:04

Yeah.

Speaker 3: 16:05

But we're always filtering information because there's too much information out there. Yeah. You know, so we have to filter it. Yeah. And particularly before we we had like thinking brains and all that stuff, yeah. It's visual systems were the main form for us as human beings to communicate. Yeah. So it's like this symbolism of how do we represent what's going on out there. Yeah. But you're still stuck with the question, well, does that mean when I'm not looking in doesn't exist? And there's still no answer to that. But we do know with quite confidence that you know our old perception of reality is wrong. And that's the reason for this conversation. Well, wrong, technically wrong, in the sense that there is no there's no evidence of an independent reality that is still there when we are not experiencing it.

Speaker: 16:49

Yes.

Speaker 3: 16:49

Yeah.

Speaker: 16:50

Yes.

Speaker 3: 16:50

So it's uh we've got to work it out. You know, we're in the middle of something different. And you know, I can then jump very quick very quickly to the question. So, why does it matter now? It matters now because it's about us recognizing our current patterns of thought and inquiry are losing their value. You know, we've taken them as far as we can. As I've said previously, we have transformed, we've used the power of, for instance, quantum computing to transform our external environment through technology. But what we haven't done is transformed ourselves. You know, we haven't taken any of this science or perspective inwards to think about, okay, so if things are different to what we thought, is there untapped potential out there for us as human beings? And then we're for the moment that's about intuition. All right. But my certainly my intuition, and I think a lot of people in this space is very much, yeah, there's huge potential because we know in the neuroscience world there is so much you know, potential untapped in the connectivity of the brain, you know, and we've only really developed it in certain areas. And and loosely we would say we've very much been preoccupied with science, linear thinking, right, uh, with execution, you know, is what can we do with it? Yes. And look, all sorts of benefits associated with that. But we haven't looked at other areas, the potential in the brain, you know, particularly areas like reflection and imagination and what we would in the corporate world say thinking outside of the box.

Speaker: 18:23

Yeah.

Speaker 3: 18:24

So so that being previously a nice to have is now becoming something of an imperative because we know we are in a direction at the moment where I keep using the phrase we're gonna fall off the cliff face.

Speaker 4: 18:37

Yeah. Can I rewind? So we're basically our the way that we are interpreting our sense data, which is under is understandable because we're visually led creatures and we work in kind of a linear fashion, and science and empirical evidence is is is reinforcing this idea that the kind of Newtonian science is reinforcing this idea that what we see is what is.

Speaker 3: 19:02

Yes, absolutely.

Speaker 4: 19:03

But actually, and and the you know, the quantum thinking is does not follow that pattern. It does not, and it is being engaged in spaces like quantum mechanics and quantum computing and manifesting the thought into the material world. Yeah. And advancing our understanding of how the material world works, but we don't make that application to ourselves, and so we're we've kind of come into a cul-de-sac of narrow thinking.

Speaker 3: 19:36

No, that's a great summary, you know, and and I think you know, the quantum mechanics space is very relevant here, as you say, because again, it's an example of getting things done. And look, what I don't want people to think is okay, so there's this spooky energy science out there that we don't understand, you know, because there's lots of it that we can harness, and that's what quantum mechanics does. So using some of the principles that are a bit technical to explain here, but nevertheless, that's the accuracy with which we can calculate you know performance in those areas is just astonishing, right? So it's not like okay, this is some flaky idea. We know quantum theory works in the quantum mechanics space, right? But in understanding that that works and gives us all sorts of quantum computing benefits, for instance, and other technology benefits. The fact is, if we buy into that our current understanding, it it destroys our current understanding of the universe, right? So we can't have it both ways, and that's what we're trying to resolve. You know, there is no one understanding of the universe and of the role played by consciousness and the implications are of you know reality as we currently understand it be but being created by our own perceptual systems. So it's like the rules are tone up what happens next, and we are a bit lost in that sense, and that's why we have to alter our our our means of inquiry, because there must now be other potential out there that we can tap into.

Speaker: 21:11

Yeah.

Speaker 3: 21:12

And we'll take that later into more the human experience, but that's where we are with the physics debate. Yeah. Okay.

Speaker: 21:18

Yeah.

Speaker 3: 21:19

Shall I say a bit about neuroscience a bit more? Obviously, I've touched on that, but there's there's a major implication now, I think, in neuroscience. Yeah. Yeah. So it would be difficult for you to say no and no to complete it again, wouldn't it? So most of them flow, you know, yeah, yeah. So the particular implication for me in in neuroscience is and look, and this has come later to the scene in terms of um the deeper understanding of consciousness, you know, and and the fact that really, you know, the neuroscience by which we can uh study live brains of human beings has only been around since. The 1990s, all right, but it's total, and that was the imaging technology breakthroughs that we had with functional MRA scans and then other things. So, but what that meant in the last 30 years or so, we've had an incredible acceleration of understanding of neuroscience and the way that the brain and the overall intelligence systems work works. Now, as a consequence of that, that sort of brings back on the table the whole discussion between is it mind or is it brain? Okay. What drives what? Um, sometimes we'll easily talk about them being an iterative process. Certainly, there are many people in neuroscience that would say that the mind is simply an output of the brain, and they will talk about the neural correlates that prove that. My argument, along with many other people's, is that doesn't prove anything because you have to prove that the correlates come first and the mind reaction comes afterwards. And we don't have technology that can operate at that speed. But for me, intuitively, it doesn't make sense anyway, because that's like saying, well, the hardware drives the software. You know, you must have some sort of intelligence that enables the hardware, in this in this case, the biological hardware, to to move, you know, to do something, to activate. So that again opens up the debate, and within neuroscience, there is no real agreement, as there isn't in any other um study, uh field of study as to exactly what mind is. We all know it's there, but it doesn't take a tangible form. We all experience it, yeah, but we can't nail down uh a definition that all feels would agree to, okay, and it's symptomatic of this this conversation that's going on. Now, for me, the mind is an energetic force, okay, and therefore that lends it to the quantum realm. It's something that we, I think, intuitively feel that drives us, okay, but it doesn't sit in the material realm, right? Because we cannot observe it per se. We can observe the results of our mind in the terms of the way that we behave, but that's not observing the mind itself. Now, to me, that's an overlay again on the whole quantum versus materialistic approach, right? Because it seems to be in another area where we're saying, well, what we are and what we do is a result of what we feel, you know, what energetically is happening to us in mind, and that creates results in the world of matter. But you can't start with the world of matter. To me, it starts with mind. Okay. And to me, therefore, it's very plausible to say the mind itself is a quantum phenomenon. Now, if that is the case, then we get back into all the stuff that quantum physics itself is saying, which is like everything's connected at the quantum level, the principle of non-locality, you know, and timelessness, hence the title of the podcast, right? Is all about that we are all connected regardless of time and location. Yeah. No, we've never thought about things like that. And it's a challenge for the moment because we just can't get our heads around it.

Speaker 1: 25:20

Yeah.

Speaker 3: 25:21

But my challenge would be that you have to, because there's a next level of potential there that's just waiting for us that we've been afraid of exploring. And to be honest, we've probably explored it in many ways more in art than we have in science.

Speaker: 25:35

Yes, I agree.

Speaker 3: 25:36

You know, because it's like because we allow our imagination to flow, we allow our experiences to flow and we bring back different information, but it's still information. And it's it's critical that it's not dismissed by scientists.

Speaker 4: 25:52

I would suggest you have a coffee, cup of tea, shake your brain into an ice bucket, and then join us for part two as we explore consciousness on this timeless podcast.